In a session held at the GRx+Biosims 2018 conference in Baltimore, Maryland, Gillian Woollett, MD, DPhil, senior vice president of Avalere Health, and Michelle Lee-Bourner, head of regulatory affairs for biologics and respiratory products at Mylan, discussed experience with and expectations for biosimilar regulation.
In a session held at the GRx+Biosims 2018 conference in Baltimore, Maryland, Gillian Woollett, MD, DPhil, senior vice president of Avalere Health, and Michelle Lee-Bourner, head of regulatory affairs for biologics and respiratory products at Mylan, discussed experience with and expectations for biosimilar regulation.
Woollett pointed out that whereas much of the world has only 2 options for classifying a biologic product—biologic or biosimilar—the United States has 3 options, adding interchangeable biologic to the list. However, she emphasized, although interchangeability is currently a hot topic of debate in the United States, the science underlying all biologic products, including biosimilars, is the same worldwide, regardless of laws in different jurisdictions that govern regulatory bodies.
Sound scientific and regulatory principles are established for all biologics, said Woollett, and any question about the similarity of reference and biosimilar products was fundamentally solved by 1996 guidance on comparability of biologics pre- and post manufacturing changes. The guidance, she explained, established the “highly similar” standard for biologics, and identical science applies to comparability and biosimilarity, even if regulatory approaches to these matters diverge in the United States.
Click to read more about manufacturing changes.
She added that manufacturing changes, which are common but unknown to US patients or physicians, are subject to review in all markets. Approved manufacturing changes involve complete extrapolation for all indications, interchangeability of the postchange product with the prechange product, and no changes to the product’s label.
Woollett posed the question of why there would then be any question about the safety of switching a patient from a reference to a biosimilar if there is no such question about switching a patient to a product that has undergone a manufacturing change. Pointing to a systematic literature review that demonstrated a low risk of safety concerns or loss of efficacy after a switch, she said that any risk associated is hypothetical only, and added that the FDA’s Leah Christl, PhD, has voiced agreement with European regulators that biosimilars are interchangeable with their references for the purpose of physician prescribing and that US interchangeability designations will serve only for the purpose of nonphysician substitution, not as a confirmation of safety.
Confidence in switching patients matters, said Woollett, because switching determines the initial market for a biosimilar. Clear communication about biosimilars by the FDA must be part of the development of that confidence, as “something must change for a sustainable multisource specialty market to emerge in the United States…if you can’t get market share with a cheaper product, those investments in biosimilar development won’t be made.”
Lee-Bourner, too, hopes for greater FDA communication about biosimilars, saying that the agency has a unique opportunity to increase trust in these products by undertaking educational activities for providers and patients alike and taking a strong stance on misinformation.
From Mylan’s perspective as a developer, communications with the FDA during presubmission meetings have been scientifically robust, well structured, and well organized, and the review process has typically proceeded in a timely fashion. However, she said, feedback from the FDA has not always been consistent, especially on products that are due to transition to regulation as biosimilars in 2020.
While crucial guidance remains underdevelopment, she said, the FDA can likely expect to see an increase in requests for scientific advice. Lee-Bourner said she also hopes to see final interchangeability guidance, clarification on the types of clinical study protocols that might qualify for Special Protocol Assessments, and the opportunity to streamline development by using non-US reference products.
AMCP Posters Tackle Interchangeability and Medicaid, Factors Driving Biosimilar Access
April 24th 2024Two posters from the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) annual meeting explore how an interchangeable insulin glargine biosimilar plays into Medicaid budgets and the top factors driving access to biosimilars.
What AmerisourceBergen's Report Reveals About Payers, Biosimilar Pricing Trends
May 28th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Tasmina Hydery and Brian Biehn from AmerisourceBergen discussed results from a recent survey, that were also presented at Asembia 2023, diving into the payer perspective on biosimilars and current pricing trends across the US biosimilar industry.
The 6 Key Policy Factors to Ensure Biosimilar Market Sustainability
April 16th 2024Magnus Bodin, senior director and head of international access and policy at Biogen, presented warning signs for unsustainable biosimilar markets as well as key factors needed to create effective policies and future-proof biosimilar markets globally.
AAD Posters Examine Clinical Effects of Switching to Ustekinumab, Adalimumab Biosimilars
March 20th 2024Two posters presented at the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) annual meeting examined the effects of switching from reference ustekinumab and adalimumab to biosimilar versions in patients with different types of psoriasis.
Celltrion, Samsung Bioepis Unveil New Biosimilar Data in CD, UC at ECCO 2024
February 23rd 2024At the Congress of European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO), Celltrion and Samsung Bioepis presented new finding from their respective biosimilar analyses, demonstrating positive safety and efficacy measures for the biosimilars as treatments for Crohn disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC).